What Do You Listen To? - Music Thread.

[ST_Catchov]

 

[Jaws2002]

 

[ST_Catchov]

                                                                                     

                                                                                   ~ Interval ~

 

                                                                                                                Choc ices available in foyer

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well, that’s wonderful.  Here’s what I’m actually listening to.

 

 

[ROCKET_KNUT]

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

[ROCKET_KNUT]

 

[ROCKET_KNUT]

 

[cardboard_killer]

[Trooper117]

I love it when people are utterly and completely wrong...

[Monty_Thrud]

 

 

 

[itsbillyfrazier]

3 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

Interesting article and in the context of February 1964, y'know I somewhat agree with the author even though I have the full benefit of hindsight as to what the band would eventually become.

 

The early Beatles stuff was simplistic, albeit very catchy pop music that wasn't particularly revolutionary or evolutionary at the time, so the journo here isn't wrong in my opinion. In 1964, they very much relied on youthful exuberance and good looks with a few catchy pop songs, so I would cut this journo some slack.

 

I mean looking at the albums/songs they had released up until that point... well it's hardly anywhere near the quality of their best stuff which would come in droves in the following years.

 

As Lennon/McCartney matured as songwriters, their best work would follow from 1965 onwards with the albums "Help", "Rubber Soul". Their greatest period was clearly '66-70... 

 

They really didn't come into their own until they started to experiment with mind altering substances and undertook their individual spiritual journeys which eventually poured forth into their music. In 1964, they were pretty much as described by this journalist in my opinion.

[cardboard_killer]

It's easy to forget that rock 'n roll as a genre was fading into irrelevance after it's 50s heyday, which the critic references with the removal of Elvis from the scene.

 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

In 1964, they were pretty much as described by this journalist in my opinion.

This guy is a columnist not a journalist. 

I have no idea who this guy is - or was - but you can tell he’s writing for a middle America about to be overwhelmed by long hair and self doubt.

Despite wearing three piece suits and ties the Beatles really were revolutionary, even in February 1964 for the simple fact they were the first to achieve massive success writing and performing their own songs.

An avalanche of pent up talent followed them.

 

Incidentally, Richard Nixon’s daughters were part of the audience of screaming young ladies ?

 

[Boomerang]

 

[ST_Catchov]

From Puccini ....

 

 

 

[itsbillyfrazier]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:43 PM, DD_Arthur said:

This guy is a columnist not a journalist. 

I've no idea who he is... columnist or journalist... perhaps he is both since neither of us know of him?

 

But yeah this was a column piece, so point taken...

 

I wonder where it was published?  Any ideas Cardboard?

 

On 2/11/2023 at 12:43 PM, DD_Arthur said:

the Beatles really were revolutionary, even in February 1964 for the simple fact they were the first to achieve massive success writing and performing their own songs

 

If you're defining "revolutionary" as writing and playing their own songs, well, there were plenty of other bands doing that in 1964 successfully (with arguably more talent and quality at that particular time)

The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Kinks are just some that spring to mind, but I'm sure I could be here all day listing many more...

 

Anyway... man for man, I'd have every member of the Stones as more musically talented than the Beatles in 1964, at least in terms of playing instruments and complexity of arrangements etc.

 

The Beatles had arguably more "success" in 1964 if we start to measure things like the number of screaming teenage girls in their audiences, financial success, fame and recognition etc. But I don't count these metrics as revolutionary...

 

I'm speaking purely from a musical/talent perspective and the impact they had on the direction of music in 1964... Perhaps I should have made this more clear.

Personally, I don't see them as revolutionary in 1964.

 

From 1966 until their breakup, they were without question revolutionary....but in 1964....nah, they were still finding their feet.

 

That's my point, and I can see why this columnist wasn't overly impressed at the time. Even if he was writing with fear in his pen for middle America and what was to come...we cant be sure. Perhaps he just wasn't overly impressed with what he saw on the Ed Sulivan show that night and simply couldn't understand the hysteria around this group of 4 lads from Liverpool.  

 

Frankly, he nor anyone else could have foreseen the eventual impact the Beatles would have on music and popular culture based on that performance in 1964.

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by itsbillyfrazier

[DD_Arthur]

On 2/11/2023 at 4:49 PM, itsbillyfrazier said:

If you're defining "revolutionary" as writing and playing their own songs, well, there were plenty of other bands doing that in 1964 successfully (with arguably more talent and quality at that particular time)

The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Kinks are just some that spring to mind, but I'm sure I could be here all day listing many more...

 

Anyway... man for man, I'd have every member of the Stones as more musically talented than the Beatles in 1964, at least in terms of playing instruments and complexity of arrangements etc.

 

I'm defining revolutionary in this case as being the firstest with the mostest with their own work.  The Beatles Ed Sullivan appearence made everyone sit up and take notice.

Singers or bands releasing their own material was still unusual.  The Stones are a good example.  Their first number one was written by Womack and Womack.

Here's another Stones hit of sixty-four - released before the Stones

  

 

For what it's worth;  I think both the Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys were always more musically talented the The Beatles....

[Guest deleted@83466]

Oh, so you’re one of those judgy guys that comes into the music thread neutral zone, and talks down on The Beatles of all things?  How dare you sir! <slap>

 

I mean, I like the Stones, but…

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by SeaSerpent

[DD_Arthur]

The Beatles? Yeah, I am judgemental; they bore me silly and their stuff hasn’t aged very well.

It’s all music hall meets vegan sausage.

[Guest deleted@83466]

This is blasphemy!
 

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

This is blasphemy!

 

It's alright Serpy. Chill with the green stuff. One expects that from a sou' west Englander. No disrespect Arthur.

 

Whatever the arguments, The Beatles were a phenomenon of their age and mine. I feel priviliged to have experienced it and continue to appreciate it.

[cardboard_killer]

[RAYEU]

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by RAYEU

[itsbillyfrazier]

Soest, West Germany, 1970.  A mere 6 years on from that Ed Sullivan show... this happened: 

 

 

Not sure how many musical genres these guys spawned... 

 

Priceless to see the reactions of the audience too. A WTF moment for many.  

 

 

[Gingerwelsh]

Smoke on the water, Deep Purple.

Everything was blurred in those days. ?

 

 

 

..

[Trooper117]

Just bloody awesome... brings back memories!

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

[ST_Catchov]

22 hours ago, itsbillyfrazier said:

Soest, West Germany, 1970.  A mere 6 years on from that Ed Sullivan show... this happened: 

 

Electronic music was pretty far out back in those days .... but they needed sexy dancers.

 

 

Or a show on the telly. Spooked me out as a wee bairn.

 

 

As did "The 30 Foot Bride of Candy Rock". 

 

 

[DeadlyMercury]

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by DeadlyMercury

[deathmisser]

I don't know why but this theme is so damn catchy. It should be part of an orchestra not a children cartoon.

Spoiler

 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this one.

[DEDMANcjp]

1 hour ago, deathmisser said:

I don't know why but this theme is so damn catchy. It should be part of an orchestra not a children cartoon.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this one.

Good music can be found everywhere.

Think of a lost loved one while you listen to this cartoon song.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by DEDMANcjp

[deathmisser]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:09 PM, DEDMANcjp said:

Good music can be found everywhere.

Think of a lost loved one while you listen to this cartoon song.

 

TAT isn't my thing but I respect you views. 

 

@DEDMANcjp I don't know about my one but I think it's the instruments and the three part'er.

 

Start - Drums 

Middle - Drums & Trumpets

End - Cymbal

 

It's such a proper build up and end I hope an musician here have a dive on it.  

My favourite got to be this one as it's just beef's up the background instruments.

[DEDMANcjp]

[cardboard_killer]

 

[ShampooX]

 

[Gingerwelsh]

Deep Purple.

Child in time.

 

Extraordinary!

 

[itsbillyfrazier]

 

[ST_Catchov]

 

 

[Trooper117]

Always liked Johnny Cash... I love that song 'Hurt' very emotional.

On a lighter note, I also love 'The Tennessee Stud...